Has there been, or will there be, a "Nadal era"?

Eras provoke much debate on here but one way in which I think they can be marked is by a player's ascendancy.

For example, 2004-2007 is quite clearly a Federer era. 1993-1997 can been seen as the Sampras era, you can even make a case that 2001-2002 was the Hewitt era.

I would also suggest that Novak's recent accomplishments are enough to view this as the Djokovic era.

These eras don't cover the whole of a player's accomplishments. They are, however, substantial periods of time in which a player has a pretty clear claim to being the best of that period.

By this definition, I think there is a conspicuous absence - Nadal.

He's certainly been the best player for spells but only in relatively short bursts - mid 08 to early 09 and most of 2010. I would say that these periods are too short and the gap between them too long to count as an 'era'.

What do you reckon? Has there been, or will there ever be, a Nadal era? Does the lack of an era diminish his standing in the game? Do 241 weeks at number 2 make him the Buzz Aldrin of tennis?

Probably not, at best there might be a Fedal era. I suspect he won't get back to #1 again but you never know for sure. But I don't think it matters. Eras in my mind are less about one player, more a period which is characterised by a narrative. He fully plays his part in the era which - without trying to provoke anyone - in my mind is the era they slowed the game.

I don't think of the Borg era, I think of Borg/Connors/McEnroe, which runs seamlessly (and there's the problem for 'era' fanatics!) into the McEnroe/Lendl/Connors era, and so on.

As for Djokovic, he's only really dominated 2011, he gave up the #1 slot for a spell in 2012 so it's neither long enough, or concentrated hegemony, to be an era. Surely an 'era' has to be more than a great year?

It might become so, for sure.

Buzz Adrin Very good!!

bogbrush wrote:As for Djokovic, he's only really dominated 2011, he gave up the #1 slot for a spell in 2012 so it's neither long enough, or concentrated hegemony, to be an era. Surely an 'era' has to be more than a great year?

Yes, I pondered over that one. In the end I took the stance that back-to-back year end number 1s, each by over 2,500 pts, is enough to view it as one period.

Losing the top spot for 17 weeks (losing en route to the player who took it) is a black mark against it for sure.

But I'd argue that reclaiming the number 1 and getting back to something resembling dominance (match record since USO is 22-1 overall, 4-0 against Roger and Andy and titles include a slam, the WTF and a TMS) is of greater significance.

I'm being rather fluid with my definitions but, hey, it's my game!

Arguably 2008-2010. He was clearly the world's best player, won 6 of 12 slams and was 3-0 against his closest rival in slam finals. Were it not for injury in mid 09, he would probably now be within striking distance of the grand slam record.

Born Slippy wrote:Arguably 2008-2010. He was clearly the world's best player, won 6 of 12 slams and was 3-0 against his closest rival in slam finals. Were it not for injury in mid 09, he would probably now be within striking distance of the grand slam record.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, when another player (Fed) is one match short of holding all 4 slams and is at number 1 for 48 weeks in that same period, I can't view it as one long Nadal era.

Fair points BS, but the 2009 results, whatever the reasons, surely kill it? I mean, it's the only year he didn't win the French and his big rival actually dominated the years results - two Slams, two finals (both only lost on final sets) and #1.

There had been no Nadal era... Federer era until end of 2007, then a FedAl era where Nadal started to make inroads across all surfaces and certainly accomplished fantastic things, but Federer was still firmly there and had matching success. Then what I would consider the Nadal transitional year- an 8month stretch in 2010 where he clearly had the dominance to himself.. IF that had kept up- that would have been the start of his true era.. Instead Djokovic emerged in 2011 and firmly took it back from Nadal.. I think we're in the Djokovic era, esp if he holds year end #1 this year for a 3rd year in a row. If not, then it could be seen as another transitional period with parity- as right now 4 different players hold Major titles.

Now clearly, Nadal has had a huge Clay Era..

Nadal has never held onto #1 from Jan to Dec, never had a long enough stretch to have an era... He will go down as the greatest #2 rank player ever and King of Clay, but unfrortuantly was stuck behind the GOAT and then while in his prime, surpassed by another player of his own age in Djokovic.

Great thread Murdoch, a very interesting question, I think he was the best player of2008-2010 as another poster noted. Djokovic has been the best players since 2011 with two year end #1 finishes in a row. That is one thing that Novak has accomplished that Nadal has not been able to is to win back to back year end #1s. Look the best player of the year is the guy that finishes number 1 that is really the fact of it, if he doesn't win a slam there is an argument in that but Djokovic was the most consistent performer in the slams and finishes and started the year as the strongest player.

I think if djoko is no1 at the end of the year then this could be the djoko era but too soon to say that atm imo

TRuffin wrote:There had been no Nadal era... Federer era until 2007, then a FedAl era where Nadal started to make inroads across all surfaces and certainly accomplished fantastic things, but Federer was still firmly there and had matching success. Then what I would consider the Nadal transitional year- an 8month stretch in 2010 where he clearly had the dominance to himself.. IF that had kept up- that would have been the start of his true era.. Instead Djokovic emerged in 2011 and firmly took it back from Nadal.. I think we're in the Djokovic era, esp if he holds year end #1 this year for a 3rd year in a row. If not, then it could be seen as another transitional period with parity- as right now 4 different players hold Major titles.

Now clearly, Nadal has had a huge Clay Era..

Nadal has never held onto #1 from Jan to Dec, never had a long enough stretch to have an era... He will go down as the greatest #2 rank player ever and King of Clay, but unfrortuantly was stuck behind the GOAT and then while in his prime, surpassed by another player of his own age in Djokovic.

A very good post ruffin, I finally get to agree with you on something. If NOvak gets 3 straight year end number ones that will be a big, big accomplishments something that few players Connors, Lendl, Fed, the real elite of the game were able to accomplsh then this period would be warranted in being called the Djokovic era. I think in regards to Nadal your judgement maybe a bit harsh, I think he was the best player when healthy from 2008 to 2011, atlhough that period was contested quite fiercely by federer and Nadal did not manage to finish two straight years as number 1. I said it long before Novak reached the #1, the year end #1 is the guy who had the best year and therefore the player of that year. Nadal has never repeated the feat but I don't knock the guy he has just had too many injuries to attack the longterm numbers that federer has put up. It makes by the way Fed's durability and consistency seem all that more amazing.

oh you've agreed with me before... ur just forgetting!! lol..

In terms of 2008-20011, you like most say "if healthy" the thing is- that's an "if".. We may think he would have been, but we dont' know. The only facts are what happened, and injuries count in sport.. If he was robbed of what would have been an era by injuries--we will never know that, so I don't think we can announce an Nadal era because of an "if healthy"

Even so, if he was the best player and giving him some credit for being injured duing that time- Federer was close enough and having come off of his own dominant era- that I think it's more a combo than a true Nadal era...

Nadal is a player who will never be able to be at the top of his game for a sustained period of time.
Simple as. He gets injured too often.

One thing I note about Djokovic is that apart from 2011 there has never been a year where he has won the most slams. 2012, he won 1 along with everyone else. Maybe 2013 will be the second year, let's see.

TRuffin wrote:oh you've agreed with me before... ur just forgetting!! lol..

In terms of 2008-20011, you like most say "if healthy" the thing is- that's an "if".. We may think he would have been, but we dont' know. The only facts are what happened, and injuries count in sport.. If he was robbed of what would have been an era by injuries--we will never know that, so I don't think we can announce an Nadal era because of an "if healthy"

Even so, if he was the best player and giving him some credit for being injured duing that time- Federer was close enough and having come off of his own dominant era- that I think it's more a combo than a true Nadal era...

Yes I may have agreed with your commentary on more than one occassion, you do have an exceedingly fond view of our highness but so do most. I honestly do give Nadal some credit for injuries, I know it is part of the sport but you are an american so you will understand the analogy, remember bo jackson? The guy never played football full time and was hurt so prematurely, but when he was healthy I can't think of single running back in the history of the sport I would prefer in my backfield. Marcus allen won the MVP and then two years later the raiders got Bo and they were like hey marcus we need you to block for bo. Then the guy gets his hip shattered and that is all she wrote for Bo. There is with certain stars a bit of an elevation you give to their career numbers if they had great lengthy periods of play interspersed with just outrageous injury issues. I think with players like Tommy Haas for example we do give him some recognition for being cheated by really bad luck in injuries. I think if Nadal had a little more luck with injuries he would be holding a lot of records right now, maybe most of the big ones. But as you say it is something that we will never know.

It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal is a player who will never be able to be at the top of his game for a sustained period of time.
Simple as. He gets injured too often.

One thing I note about Djokovic is that apart from 2011 there has never been a year where he has won the most slams. 2012, he won 1 along with everyone else. Maybe 2013 will be the second year, let's see.

Actually this is a Murray era , but jokes apart, Djoko don't deserve an era unless and until he proves his dominance over consistent period of time. I agree with Bogbrush the era will be viewed as Fedal era, and era where two of the greatest players played , neither Fed nor Nadal will be unhappy with that shared title.

Djokovic era, may be we can discuss in 2015 if he holds on to no.1 non-stop till then, atleast year end no.1

socal1976 wrote:

TRuffin wrote:oh you've agreed with me before... ur just forgetting!! lol..

In terms of 2008-20011, you like most say "if healthy" the thing is- that's an "if".. We may think he would have been, but we dont' know. The only facts are what happened, and injuries count in sport.. If he was robbed of what would have been an era by injuries--we will never know that, so I don't think we can announce an Nadal era because of an "if healthy"

Even so, if he was the best player and giving him some credit for being injured duing that time- Federer was close enough and having come off of his own dominant era- that I think it's more a combo than a true Nadal era...

Yes I may have agreed with your commentary on more than one occassion, you do have an exceedingly fond view of our highness but so do most. I honestly do give Nadal some credit for injuries, I know it is part of the sport but you are an american so you will understand the analogy, remember bo jackson? The guy never played football full time and was hurt so prematurely, but when he was healthy I can't think of single running back in the history of the sport I would prefer in my backfield. Marcus allen won the MVP and then two years later the raiders got Bo and they were like hey marcus we need you to block for bo. Then the guy gets his hip shattered and that is all she wrote for Bo. There is with certain stars a bit of an elevation you give to their career numbers if they had great lengthy periods of play interspersed with just outrageous injury issues. I think with players like Tommy Haas for example we do give him some recognition for being cheated by really bad luck in injuries. I think if Nadal had a little more luck with injuries he would be holding a lot of records right now, maybe most of the big ones. But as you say it is something that we will never know.

Bo Jackson was fantastic.. I knew him when he was graduating college personally..

Still- Nadal was healthy as #2 behind Federer, he was healthy in 2011 when Djokovic passed him as the best in the world.. If we want to say he is given a pass for 2009, then Federer deserves a pass for 2008-- the guy was coming off possibly one of the most dominant runs in tennis history and suddenly dropped in 2008 a level... We can play the what if's with everyone.. I just don't see how Nadal has spent enough time as a true dominant #1 to have an era... He's done plenty of great things though. I also don't know if it's fair to say "luck with injuries".. His style led to a quicker and great wearing down than others.. That's also part of being a great athlete and part of a story-- In order for him to be as good as Federer or even Djokoivc, he had to go down a more grueling route than they.. So he gets credit for being able to do that, but at the same time- I give more credit in raking greats to someone like Federer who was so talented and great that he could maintain a level for years and years, vs. someone who's star could shine just as brightly but for only brief times... When you get down to the very best ever,, that's what differentiates them.. There were boxers who could fight just as well as Ali for a few years, but they didn't do it for 10 years like he... QB's who played just as well in Superbowl as Montana, but they didn't do it in 4 SuperBowls.. plenty of receivers have had 4,5 years of jerry Rice numbers, but he did it for 15 years.. Moss was on pace to pass Rice, but his legs wore down quicker... Randy Moss isn't as great as Rice becasue he "would of,could of,should of" passed his records if his legs held out...... I take the save view with Nadal and his injuries, wearing down.

I think viewing that 2008 - 2009 period as a 'Fedal' era is about right.

In hindsight, it was a pretty great spell for tennis.

In W 08 and AO 09 there are two Fedal classics.

It saw Rafa break out of clay, Fed break Pete's slam record and a breakout year from Novak (in 2008 he was only 10 points behind Fed in the year end rankings!).

Murdoch- 2011 is the only year in which Djokovic won the standout most slams in a year

It Must Be Love wrote:Murdoch- 2011 is the only year in which Djokovic won the standout most slams in a year

True.

But winning no fewer slams than anyone else, winning the next best event (WTF) and finishing over 2,500 pts clear of his closest rival in the rankings is, I think, enough to view 2012 as an extension of his era.

We've been spoilt by Federers definition of an era - winning just about everything.

Previous periods of 'dominance' were never so ...... dominant.

bogbrush wrote:We've been spoilt by Federers definition of an era - winning just about everything.

Previous periods of 'dominance' were never so ...... dominant.

He not only has a clear era of his own, he muddies the waters on other people's too!

Greedy s0d.

Back to my original thesis it is all federer's fault

socal1976 wrote:Back to my original thesis it is all federer's fault

It's his double fault!

Wikipedia: An era is a commonly used word for long period of time....
such as for example the Mesozoic Era from 252 Ma–66 Ma

http://answers.askkids.com/Nature/How_Long_is_An_Era says 5-100+ years.

http://answers.ask.com/Science/Nature/how_long_is_an_era There are a total of 12 Eras so far, and they are each several hundred million years long.

Wiki answers: the Tudor era lasted from 1485 to 1603

"era" cannot be 2 or 3 years long!

I think we are in the Federer/Nadal era which followed the Sampras/Agassi era.

Unclear when the Federer/Nadal era will end. We won't know until we look back. It may even have already ended.

The Federer / Nadal era was brief and ended some time ago.

Prior to 2008, it was one guy dominating and another guy picking up RG.

2010 was one guy dominating and the other guy not.

2011 was both guys being dominated by someone else.

2012 was nobody dominating.

The Federer/Nadal era lasted about 18 months from W 07 to AO 09.

It's not only about which one player is dominating, they were the 2 best players from 2005 to 2010 and will remembered as such by the general public for that and for their great matches in and around that period.

Henman Bill wrote:...their great matches in and around that period.

Out of 28 meetings, disappointingly few were truly great matches. 10 of them were straight sets wins!

TRuffin wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

TRuffin wrote:oh you've agreed with me before... ur just forgetting!! lol..

In terms of 2008-20011, you like most say "if healthy" the thing is- that's an "if".. We may think he would have been, but we dont' know. The only facts are what happened, and injuries count in sport.. If he was robbed of what would have been an era by injuries--we will never know that, so I don't think we can announce an Nadal era because of an "if healthy"

Even so, if he was the best player and giving him some credit for being injured duing that time- Federer was close enough and having come off of his own dominant era- that I think it's more a combo than a true Nadal era...

Yes I may have agreed with your commentary on more than one occassion, you do have an exceedingly fond view of our highness but so do most. I honestly do give Nadal some credit for injuries, I know it is part of the sport but you are an american so you will understand the analogy, remember bo jackson? The guy never played football full time and was hurt so prematurely, but when he was healthy I can't think of single running back in the history of the sport I would prefer in my backfield. Marcus allen won the MVP and then two years later the raiders got Bo and they were like hey marcus we need you to block for bo. Then the guy gets his hip shattered and that is all she wrote for Bo. There is with certain stars a bit of an elevation you give to their career numbers if they had great lengthy periods of play interspersed with just outrageous injury issues. I think with players like Tommy Haas for example we do give him some recognition for being cheated by really bad luck in injuries. I think if Nadal had a little more luck with injuries he would be holding a lot of records right now, maybe most of the big ones. But as you say it is something that we will never know.

Bo Jackson was fantastic.. I knew him when he was graduating college personally..

Still- Nadal was healthy as #2 behind Federer, he was healthy in 2011 when Djokovic passed him as the best in the world.. If we want to say he is given a pass for 2009, then Federer deserves a pass for 2008-- the guy was coming off possibly one of the most dominant runs in tennis history and suddenly dropped in 2008 a level... We can play the what if's with everyone.. I just don't see how Nadal has spent enough time as a true dominant #1 to have an era... He's done plenty of great things though. I also don't know if it's fair to say "luck with injuries".. His style led to a quicker and great wearing down than others.. That's also part of being a great athlete and part of a story-- In order for him to be as good as Federer or even Djokoivc, he had to go down a more grueling route than they.. So he gets credit for being able to do that, but at the same time- I give more credit in raking greats to someone like Federer who was so talented and great that he could maintain a level for years and years, vs. someone who's star could shine just as brightly but for only brief times... When you get down to the very best ever,, that's what differentiates them.. There were boxers who could fight just as well as Ali for a few years, but they didn't do it for 10 years like he... QB's who played just as well in Superbowl as Montana, but they didn't do it in 4 SuperBowls.. plenty of receivers have had 4,5 years of jerry Rice numbers, but he did it for 15 years.. Moss was on pace to pass Rice, but his legs wore down quicker... Randy Moss isn't as great as Rice becasue he "would of,could of,should of" passed his records if his legs held out...... I take the save view with Nadal and his injuries, wearing down.

Great post Ruffin, that is why in the GOAT sweepstakes I do give an edge to Roger and the gap in achievement and longevity he has with any of his contemporaries or predecessors. Yet to an extent I also view that outside factors like competition and injuries do play a role in the analysis although in a secondary way, with the main factor being the objective accomplishments of the player. But I do believe that we give players who have accomplished a great deal in the face of massive injury issues an extra bit of consideration.

As for Nadal's playing style I don't think it is his style that gives him physical problems. A lot of players play that grinding style and they don't have the consistent sort of foot problems Nadal has. Volleying is one of the most taxing aspects of tennis on the body, the hard and explosive movesthat cost a toll as much as defense does. Serve and volleyers traditionally have not had a long life span in tennis when compared to baseline players. Nadal has more injuries and all of them for the most part with the legs.

But you are right nothing was wrong with him 2011 and Novak did pass him up, beat him 7 straight finals on 3 different surfaces. I think Novak has been the best player consecutively for two years and has started 2013 more strongly than anyone. Also he doesn't get credit for basically averaging 80 matches a year for the last 6 seasons, he has been very durable and consistent, while of course suffering some injuries here and there.

socal1976 wrote:

TRuffin wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

TRuffin wrote:oh you've agreed with me before... ur just forgetting!! lol..

In terms of 2008-20011, you like most say "if healthy" the thing is- that's an "if".. We may think he would have been, but we dont' know. The only facts are what happened, and injuries count in sport.. If he was robbed of what would have been an era by injuries--we will never know that, so I don't think we can announce an Nadal era because of an "if healthy"

Even so, if he was the best player and giving him some credit for being injured duing that time- Federer was close enough and having come off of his own dominant era- that I think it's more a combo than a true Nadal era...

Yes I may have agreed with your commentary on more than one occassion, you do have an exceedingly fond view of our highness but so do most. I honestly do give Nadal some credit for injuries, I know it is part of the sport but you are an american so you will understand the analogy, remember bo jackson? The guy never played football full time and was hurt so prematurely, but when he was healthy I can't think of single running back in the history of the sport I would prefer in my backfield. Marcus allen won the MVP and then two years later the raiders got Bo and they were like hey marcus we need you to block for bo. Then the guy gets his hip shattered and that is all she wrote for Bo. There is with certain stars a bit of an elevation you give to their career numbers if they had great lengthy periods of play interspersed with just outrageous injury issues. I think with players like Tommy Haas for example we do give him some recognition for being cheated by really bad luck in injuries. I think if Nadal had a little more luck with injuries he would be holding a lot of records right now, maybe most of the big ones. But as you say it is something that we will never know.

Bo Jackson was fantastic.. I knew him when he was graduating college personally..

Still- Nadal was healthy as #2 behind Federer, he was healthy in 2011 when Djokovic passed him as the best in the world.. If we want to say he is given a pass for 2009, then Federer deserves a pass for 2008-- the guy was coming off possibly one of the most dominant runs in tennis history and suddenly dropped in 2008 a level... We can play the what if's with everyone.. I just don't see how Nadal has spent enough time as a true dominant #1 to have an era... He's done plenty of great things though. I also don't know if it's fair to say "luck with injuries".. His style led to a quicker and great wearing down than others.. That's also part of being a great athlete and part of a story-- In order for him to be as good as Federer or even Djokoivc, he had to go down a more grueling route than they.. So he gets credit for being able to do that, but at the same time- I give more credit in raking greats to someone like Federer who was so talented and great that he could maintain a level for years and years, vs. someone who's star could shine just as brightly but for only brief times... When you get down to the very best ever,, that's what differentiates them.. There were boxers who could fight just as well as Ali for a few years, but they didn't do it for 10 years like he... QB's who played just as well in Superbowl as Montana, but they didn't do it in 4 SuperBowls.. plenty of receivers have had 4,5 years of jerry Rice numbers, but he did it for 15 years.. Moss was on pace to pass Rice, but his legs wore down quicker... Randy Moss isn't as great as Rice becasue he "would of,could of,should of" passed his records if his legs held out...... I take the save view with Nadal and his injuries, wearing down.

Great post Ruffin, that is why in the GOAT sweepstakes I do give an edge to Roger and the gap in achievement and longevity he has with any of his contemporaries or predecessors. Yet to an extent I also view that outside factors like competition and injuries do play a role in the analysis although in a secondary way, with the main factor being the objective accomplishments of the player. But I do believe that we give players who have accomplished a great deal in the face of massive injury issues an extra bit of consideration.

As for Nadal's playing style I don't think it is his style that gives him physical problems. A lot of players play that grinding style and they don't have the consistent sort of foot problems Nadal has. Volleying is one of the most taxing aspects of tennis on the body, the hard and explosive movesthat cost a toll as much as defense does. Serve and volleyers traditionally have not had a long life span in tennis when compared to baseline players. Nadal has more injuries and all of them for the most part with the legs.

But you are right nothing was wrong with him 2011 and Novak did pass him up, beat him 7 straight finals on 3 different surfaces. I think Novak has been the best player consecutively for two years and has started 2013 more strongly than anyone. Also he doesn't get credit for basically averaging 80 matches a year for the last 6 seasons, he has been very durable and consistent, while of course suffering some injuries here and there.

Thanks.. it was a good conversation..

Take care and drop in more often ruffin.

its similar to McEnroe, there was a Borg era, then McEnroe broke it but then Lendl started his own era. Like McEnroe, he will be more remembered as part of the Federer/Nadal rivalry like McEnroe/Borg. But Djokovic and Lendl were the more dominant players

On Clay, yes.

However in defining an era, very difficult. I wouldn't be calling this the Djokovic era because similar to Nadal has the 1 year of 3 Slams and a one swallow doesn't make a summer. Nadal after 2008 seemed to hit injury after injury and has never really got a rythym going in his season's probably the exception of 2010. Same with Djokovic. Dominating Australia but yet finding the other Slams more difficult to sustain consistency.

I think Federer, Sampras and Borg really deserve their name associated with an era. Anyone else is really pushing the boat.

CAS wrote:its similar to McEnroe, there was a Borg era, then McEnroe broke it but then Lendl started his own era. Like McEnroe, he will be more remembered as part of the Federer/Nadal rivalry like McEnroe/Borg. But Djokovic and Lendl were the more dominant players

That is an interesting analogy CAS and we could be witnessing something very similar with Novak, Rafa, and Roger. As a djokovic fan if Novak could have a run like lendl at the top that would be wonderful, I think he has a very good chance of overhaul lendl in terms of slams, but if he could the same number of weeks at #1 that would be quite a run of form. But unlike Borg, Roger stuck around and has been able to add slams to his count in the succeeding years.

I assume the Borg era started around July 1979, otherwise Connors would have been ranked No 1 for most of the Borg era (Borg only had 7 weeks at No 1 prior to July 1979)

Exactly, Julius, winning 3 straight year end number 1s is rarely if ever accomplished in the sport of tennis. And in all these periods had other players winning slams and competing as well. Even federer's patton style charge through the rollover generation saw him repeatedly getting beaten by Nadal.

LK you are infamous Djokovic greatness denier.

2011 and 2012 are undeniably the first 2 years of the Djokovic Era. Even though he wasn't as dominant in 2012 as the year before, no body else came close to his insane consistency.

Chydremion wrote:2011 and 2012 are undeniably the first 2 years of the Djokovic Era. Even though he wasn't as dominant in 2012 as the year before, no body else came close to his insane consistency.

My sentiments exactly!

In August I would have said Fed was player of the year.

By September, Andy was arguably the player of the year.

But by the end of the season Novak had a pretty clear claim to being player of the year. Nobody could match the consistency.

He's also notched up a 22-1 match record and gone 4-0 against his 'Big 4' rivals since USO without anyone really noticing!

I agree with Murdoch these djokovic fans are so well informed.

Personally I think it was clear that last year was a season where for much of the year in the middle part Novak wasn't playing near his best.

Still despite that he maintained his mojo over the rest of the tour and kept competing there was never a doubt in my mind that he would overtake fed and finish 1


But doing it with a straight set victory over fed in conditions that favored federer put the exclamation point on his claim to being the best player that year

HMM : a very balanced assessment I'd say

Novak's sheer consistency is certainly what stands out right now - as illustrated by that very impressive 22-1 W/L record, still counting

Those stats are very similar to what Federer put together in the early part of 2012 en route to regaining World Number One when he went 26-2 starting with the Aussie Open. However he does now risk dropping a good number of points, given that it's highly unlikely he will repeat the same pattern this year ............

I don't think djoko will have nearly the weight on his shoulders to defend points he managed to defend 2011 well enough to Finnish number 1

If anything Novak can gain points in the clay court season if nadal doesn't comeback as strong or even if nadal does Novak can beat him on the clay

If anything his opponents will after Miami have to worry about Novak padding his gap and he has no more slams to defend

Novak held serve now let's see if fed, nadal, and Murray can defend their slams it isn't as easy as it sounds

socal1976 wrote:...Finnish number 1

Jarkko Nieminen

socal1976 wrote:Novak held serve now let's see if fed, nadal, and Murray can defend their slams it isn't as easy as it sounds

No, it's sure not as easy as it sounds - as Novak found with his USO and Wimby crowns.

He has done fantastically well to defend his AO twice, and thereby make it three in a row. But there will be many more challenges in the future, and it's gets tougher and tougher as the years go by and new players come along.

It will be interesting to see just how well Andy can do as a defending champ when the USO rolls around again.

As for Federer : I doubt if anyone has been more successful when it comes to defending Slam titles, just as I doubt he has much - or indeed anything ?? - left to prove at this late stage of his career ........

socal1976 wrote:LK you are infamous Djokovic greatness denier.

Not really.

Just not sure what Djokovic has done that say Nadal hasn't.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:LK you are infamous Djokovic greatness denier.

Not really.

Just not sure what Djokovic has done that say Nadal hasn't.

I'm sure I can riff a few things....!:

Back-to-back year end number 1s

11 consecutive slam semi finals (and counting)

Won WTF (twice)

5 TMS in 1 season

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:LK you are infamous Djokovic greatness denier.

Not really.

Just not sure what Djokovic has done that say Nadal hasn't.

I'm sure I can riff a few things....!:

Back-to-back year end number 1s

11 consecutive slam semi finals (and counting)

Won WTF (twice)

5 TMS in 1 season

Then it would run the other way with the list of things which Nadal has done that Djokovic hasn't. Swings and roundabouts.

I don't think Nadal will ever have an era and Djokovic has some going first before he can be considered of having an era.

Why are we even trying to create an era for a guy who has 5 less slams, hasn't won them all, and many other things. If Nadal hasn't got an era on 11 slams, it doesn't take Einstein to work out Djokovic hasn't got one either on 6. When did any player have an era based around 6 slams and a few other achievements?

Infact what players have had their own era's properly within the Open Era? By that, I mean a period of time...has to be 3 or more years I'd say...where 1 player defines that period head & shoulders above the others.

Laver...? Not sure about Open Era
Connors....maybe but small period
Borg...yes...but then only 2 types of slam.
Mac? Don't think so.
Becker...no
Edberg & Wilander...no
Lendl.....actually maybe...but not sure
Sampras...yes
Agassi....no (overshadowed by Sampras)
Federer...yes
Nadal...no (clay yes...but that's not really a full era)
Djokovic...no

So, Borg...Sampras...Federer only? Maybe Lendl... Ie. is it those who had long stints at #1.

Maybe it's just Pete and Roger....and oddly enough Lendl?

When was the Borg era?

I'm not sure any player has an era to themselves.

If it happened it would have to be late 70s...say 76-79/80ish. But as I wrote, not sure due to lack of slam spread and he wasn't THAT long at #1.

If you look at guys at #1 you have 4 who stand out head & shoulders above the rest.

Connors...268
Lendl...270
Sampras...285
Federer...302

If you look at guys who finished as y/e #1 then you have 5 above 4yrs...the above plus McEnroe.

Do any have a claim to their own era? Surely if some of them don't have a claim then how can anyone else outside that group?